Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Daniel Macks wrote:
>|
>| That's why I also mentioned adding some sort of magic number and have
>| the indexer ignore any file that is newer than the level it supports.
>| Maybe a "MinFinkVersion: " field as the first line?
[snip summary of problem[
> To work around these, because we can't magically change code in released
> fink packages, a number of possible solutions were discussed;
>
> 3. make the first line in packages using these new % expansions 'Info2: <<'
> and update fink to not treat this field specially in future releases.
> previously released fink versions will grumble a little but about
> unterminated here-docs, but won't die.
A modified version of this is now implemented. I went with a full
heredoc (including closing <<). It makes the message an old-fink user
gets "no package name in file" which is slightly more indicative of
the actual problem than "unterminated heredoc". It's one less oddity
("I know it looks like a heredoc, but it's not so don't terminate it"
vs. "just put the whole .info inside a Info2: heredoc") to deal
with. And it was pretty easy to keep the code generic (the function
that parses .info is not .info-specific so I didn't see a reason to
add this .info-specific action to it).
dan
--
Daniel Macks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
